Re: Whats chances of getting libTLSv1.3 for stretch
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 11:38:14AM +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 08 iul 20, 09:36:25, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > And I note that procmail is being bad-mouthed, but its been doing
> > exactly what I want for 2 decades with no hiccups.
>
> I remember having a look at its syntax and... well, let's say I used
> maildrop ;)
>
> > I would submit that its docs might need help, but if you read them
> > carefully, it does exactly what you tell it to do, so I've no
> > need/urge to experiment with getmail.
>
> getmail is intended as a replacement for fetchmail...
>
> http://pyropus.ca/software/getmail/faq.html#faq-about-why
>
> As far as I can tell it supports Python 2 only, which is going to be
> removed from Debian.
Gene, the biggest benefit to switching off of fetchmail is speed. It is
literally 10 or more times faster.
And a trick to make it about twice as fast or more again (even before
transitioning from procmail to sieve) is to make it 2 steps:
1. Save all downloading email to a temp email folder/file.
2. Only after that's finished, sort your email into folders.
Doing it this way means that the sorting program is only launched (and
all the rules read) once, not once for each email.
The final speed boost, and much cleaner rules file (which I suggest not
doing until after getmail is running smoothly for you) is using sieve
for email sorting.
There are 2 sieves: Gnu `sieve` in the `mailutils` package, and
`sieve-filter` from the `dovecot-sieve` package.
dovecot-sieve by default pulls in dovecot-core, the mail server, which I
don't use, and I'm not sure if it is started automatically when
installed, so I just use gnu sieve.
The only thing with gnu sieve though, is that it balks on the occasional
emails containing a lone extra space at the end of the From line (which
is out of spec), which means a trivial perl/sed pass on your "incoming/
recently downloaded email folder" prior to sorting, something like this:
perl -p -i -e 's/^(From:.*)( +)$/\1/' "$MAIL_INCOMING"
All that said, we won't hold the stone age against ya ;)
Reply to: